The Relationship between Immanuel Velikovsky and Christian
Catastrophists
CHARLES McDOWELL
Cuyahoga Community College
Parma, Ohio 44130

From: JASA 25 (December 1973): 140-146.

Introduction

Two decades have passed since Immanuel Velikovsky released his book
called Worlds
in Collision. The work, which received considerable popular acclaim, maintained
that in the fifteenth and eighth centuries B.C. the Earth experienced
catastrophes
of global proportions. Velikovsky argued that the source of these
global holocausts
was a massive near-approaching comet which finally collided with Mars, lost its
tail and became the planet Venus. Later catastrophes occurred, one of
particularly
great significance in 687 B.C. when Mars nearly collided with the Earth due to
the fact that the comet had shifted it into an orbit closer to the Earth.

Such concepts caused a storm of protest in American circles, much of it being
absurd. The reader will find in our footnotes suitable leads to
pursue such information
as needed.1

Our purpose here is to note that out of this academic upheaval
ultimately permanent
changes occurred in intellectual circles including, the Christian. Velikovsky,
whether right or wrong in his individual applications, introduced the idea that
the source of great catastrophes in antiquity was outside of the Earth itself.
The academic community which largely subscribed to the idea of
evolution posited
the concept that the solar system had been untouched by cosmic disturbances for
eons of time. With this premise as a fundamental assurance, the
scientists could
securely proclaim that processes that go on in nature in the present age were
the same processes with the same magnitude which occurred for eons of
time. This
is the heart of uniformitarianism, the intellectual foundation of
organic evolution.

This paper must depart, however, from these introductory remarks to
consider specifically
the relationship between Velikovsky's concepts of catastrophism and concepts of
catastrophism held by representative Christian writers.
Representative positions
will be used be
cause a short paper cannot begin to cover all of the published
materials on Biblical catastrophism. Accordingly, this paper reflects largely the concepts of Henry
Morris, Donald W. Patten and my own. The writer makes the assumption that only
theistically controlled catastrophism is to be compared with the
system of Immanuel Velikovsky. This study vies for attention by means of the proposition that in
a very recent and an extremely short period of time all aspects of the history
of all forms of organic life were accomplished.

The comparisons are made at several topic levels: namely creation, the flood,
and post-flood catastrophes. Accordingly, the views of the separate
writers will
be considered on each of these topics.

Comparative Views on Creation

Velilcovsky on Creation

Very significantly we do not find Velikovsky referring to the beginnings of the
solar system or the universe. Velikovsky was not concerned about
beginnings, only
change in the solar system which affected the Earth. Velikovsky
assumed evolution
is a fact but disputed the mechanisms as to how those evolutionary
processes were
accomplished.

Velikovsky leaned heavily upon two British cosmologists, W. H. MeCrea and H. A.
Lyttleton.2 McCrea has theorized that no planet could have originated
inside the
Jovian orbit, given a nebular hypothesis. Lyttieton put forth a complementary
theory noting that the terrestrial planets originated from Jupiter
through disruption
caused by too rapid rotation when Jupiter was formerly much larger
than at present.
Thus Velikovsky believes in a nebular hypothesis with stages of development for
the inner terrestrial realm. By Lyttleton's model Velikovsky would
make the Earth
older than Venus.

Henry Morris is am engineer who has concerned himself to a considerable
degree in his professional career of teaching
with hydraulic engineering. In
a team effort
with John C. Whitcomb Jr., Morris and Whitcomb put forth a significant concept
when they stated that the Earth and the organic life upon it were created with
the "appearance of age.3 Morris' view of instantaneous maturity
of all organic
life is a logical approach to a creation process which spans only six days.4 Furthermore
by virtue of this six-day creation Morris handily disposes of the
"gap theory"
which assumes there were pre-Adamic forms of life on the Earth, all
of which were
destroyed by floods or judgments in the so-called interval between Genesis 1:1
and 1:2.5 Certainly the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1-2 would seem to support the
"gap theory" only if it is seriously distorted by means of
unsound principles
of syntax. However, Morris does state "The first verse,
incidentally is not
a dependent clause (i.e. "in the beginning, when God
was creating . . . the earth was without form . ")"6 Genesis 1:1 cannot be treated incidentally and a closer look is
required in this
paper.

Morris, then, assumes a "full grown" universe is accomplished within
6 days and that this system of matter, space, and time continues with
the present
principles of conservation and deterioration governing everything in
the physical
universe. Our space is too brief to include Morris' applications of
these principles,
the first and second laws of thermodynamics. We must confine ourselves to note
that he finds that no empirical exceptions are to be found to these principles.
There is no illustration of anything now being created. On the other hand, we
find an original creation running down or wearing out.7 Morris
believes that evolution
is impossible because no instance of gradual development from the simple to the
complex organization can be found.

Donald W. Patten on Creation

The astronomer-geographer Donald W. Fatten approaches the origins of the Earth
from the standpoint of (1) showing the impracticality of the helio
genesis theories
and (2) ascribing the origin of the Earth and many of the planets, especially
the Jovian, to galactogenesis.8 Patten believes that the Sun with an
immense gravity
and high galactic speed may have overtaken celestial bodies which had an origin
entirely separate from our solar system.9

Patten approaches this theory of galactogenesis from the standpoint of what is
possible in terms of celestial mechanics. As far as the Earth is concerned, he
believes that an Earth-Moon binary, which spent considerable astronomical time
outside our solar system, was gravitationally swept into the present
solar f amily.10
Fatten postulates that around 10 million years ago the EarthMoon
system came across
the outer fringes of the Sun's domain and gradually was influenced to
take present
proximate location and orbit about 100,000 B.C.11 During the next 95,000 years
vast quantities of ice were melted, the seas were formed, the
atmosphere and climate
were organized. Also, during this span of time catastrophes occurred
and "ammonias,
hydroxyls, hydrocarbons and related compounds were deposited upon the
Earth, resulting
in strata of coal, pools of petroleum, and additional volumes of
nitrogen in the
atmosphere."12 Within the

Velikovsky, whether right or wrong in his individual applications, introduced
the idea that the source of great catastrophes in antiquity was outside of the
Earth itself.

atmospheric structure a canopy was developed which produces a global greenhouse
effect.

In the period from 12,000-2,800 B.C., Fatten maintains, "the major part of
the Earth's biology was created." Earlier phases of organic life which he
attributes to the lower levels of the geological table were created chiefly in
the period from 20,000-12,000 B.C.13 The Patteoian system of course precludes
any form of evolution. It also gives rational explanations for the
heterogeneous
character of the solar system, a character which still embarrasses
many astronomers.

McDowell on Creation

My own views on creation grow out of my understanding of the Hebrew
text of Genesis
1:1-2. I render the text as follows: "When God began to fashion
the heavens
and the Earth, the Earth was unorganized and empty with darkness upon
the surface
of the seas and the wind of God swept over the waters."

This is not the place to debate the merits of this or any other
translation. For
those in in the grammar and the syntax that I follow, it is simply a
case of recognizing
that the first two words are in construct relationship, rather than
absolute forms.
Manifestly, according to this view, which is as old as Medieval
Hebrew grammarians,
Genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause.
If the Masoretic text is allowed to speak for itself, there can be no
doubt that
the Earth was already in existence and that the first chapter of
Genesis concerns
itself with a renovating of the Earth for the purpose of making it a suitable
place for organic life and especially for man who is the crowning achievement
of the created forms of life. No indication is given for the age of the Earth.
In this very terse explanation of Genesis 1, I must allude to the fact that I
can in no way see how a "creation out of nothing" (creatio ex nihilo)
can be attributed to the text. The Masoretic Hebrew text could, of course, he
emended so that the first word would be in an absolute state to read "In
the beginning". But the accepted text reads quite literally "In the
beginning of created God" etc. "In the beginning of"
is adverbial,
modifying the verb and must be given the temporal sense as I have rendered it
above. Furthermore, while I hold to the fact of the creation process
being completed
in 6 consecutive solar days, I will go no further than what the text hears out.
The word for creation (bara) means in Semitic languages to shape or
fashion material
items. Genesis 1:27 uses it three times to describe the creation of
man and woman.
Those who insist on creation out of nothing should remember where man and woman
came from (Genesis 2:7-22).

Paramount in my understanding of Genesis 1, is the nature of the
firmament which
consists of the upper waters while the seas comprise the lower waters (Genesis
1:6-10). Both Morris and Fatten believe that the upper waters
consisted of a vapor
canopy which
afforded protection to the inhabitants of the Earth. However, I
regard the raqia
as the linguistic equivalent of the Indo-European torque (as it
appears in English)
and, therefore, as a collar, ring or disk. In the physical sense,
then, I believe
the firmament consisted of orbiting rings similar to those of Saturn.

The present writer links the formation of the rings of the Earth with
a Pattenian
type of solar system and celestial mechanics, one in which changes were induced
by new elements being added to the solar system. I do not propose at
this juncture
which member of the solar system disrupted the oceans of the Earth
gravitationally;
nevertheless, I hold that astronomical quantities of water, sand
gravel, and solubles
were swept into orbit where, following glacioseparation (separation
by freezing),
the glacioseparatives took up individual orbits according to their
specific gravities.
For the description of the waters which are above the heavens I would call our
attention to the Hebrew word chug (bug) which means circle and which is used to
describe the heavens in job 26:10, 22:14, and Isaiah 40:22. If we
were to render
this word in IndoEuropean languages, especially Creek, we would have
to recognize
that sometimes the h would appear as ch (Greek chi) and sometimes it
would drop.
I assume that it did drop in the case of Oceanus, the Earthencircling stream.
Oceanus could he derived from Oc/g + ean + us.

The orbiting ice rings of Saturn have been captured (i.e., Fatten) or have been
pulled off Saturn itself. Velikovsky maintains tersely that Saturn
was once disrupted
by Jupiter. While Velikovsky is interested in such disruption for
other reasons,
I assume that this type of disruption could have swept some light
materials into
orbit." It is significant that the rings are above the equator, the place
where the centrifugal forces would be concentrated especially on a
rapidly rotating
planet. Not to be forgotten are the bands on Saturn which are parallel to the
equator and, therefore to the rings. I propose they consist of materials which
were hurled into suborbital arcs and as they returned to the surface of Saturn,
the materials were distributed in bands parallel to the equator.

The possibility of the disruption of a planet occurring over the equator is not
without further possible examples in the solar system. The two
satellites of Mars,
Phobos and Deimos, orbit almost precisely above the equator. The speed at Mars'
equator is not high. If Mars' centrifugal forces were augmented by considerable
gravitational forces, such as from the Earth on a close sweep, it is
conceivable
that the disruption might include the lift off of sizeable materials.
Nonetheless,
Uranus provides the most interesting set of circumstances. Its axis is tilted
at 98°, almost lying in its orbital plane. The planet spins very rapidly:
10 hours plus 49 minutes. Additionally, the five satellites are found over the
equator, an arrangement that might be expected if the planet were disrupted by
outside forces.

Returning to the Earth model, I note an additional aspect of the rings orbiting
the Earth. I believe that Patten is correct in stating that an old antediluvian
position of the Earth's axis was approximately from Nigeria to Samoa and that
the former equatorial zone is to be determined in relation to the
circum-Pacific
orogenetic patterns.15 This old equator approximated a circle arcing over
Alaska at its greatest poleward extent in he Northern Hemisphere. It is along this old equatorial zone that, I believe,
the more vastly deep, global ocean of the primeval Earth was disrupted. It is
over this former equatorial zone that astronomical quantities of
water, solubles,
and items in suspension were swept into space, some to orbit the Earth, some to
escape its gravitational control.

On the matter of mechanism I confess that I cannot identify at the present time
in terms of sound celestial mechanics the object which
gravitationally disrupted
the Earth.
Comparative Views on the Flood Velikoesky on the Flood of Noah

Apparently Immanuel Velikovsky has had a manuscript on the Flood of Noah which
he has held back for many years just as he did with the second volume of Ages
in Chaos. In the preface to Worlds in Collision lie remarked, "Worlds in
Collision comprises only the last two acts of the cosmic drama. A few earlier
actsone of them known as the Deluge-will be the subject of another
volume of natural
history."16 He suggests in the Yale Scientific that the
folkloristic material
links it with a near collision of Jupiter and Saturn.17

Velikovsky's delay in releasing materials is extremely disappointing
but probably
stems from internal inconsistencies within his manuscripts. No one should read,
for example, his Earth in Upheaval which variously describes the
action of water
in less than global size floods and imagine that he is speaking about the Flood
of Noah. Velikovsky is speaking about catastrophes he believes occurred after
1500 B.C. Nonetheless he links with these post 1500 B.C. catastrophes
the eleventh
tablet of the Epic of Gilgarnesh which clearly deals with the Deluge. 18 Sad to
say Vehkovsky attempted to prove cataclysmic evolution in his Earth
in Upheaval.19
All he really proved was cataclysmic extinction of various forms of life.

In 1969 Velikovsky became a little more specific on the mechanisms of
the Flood.
He stated "In my understanding, less than 10,000 years ago, together with
the Earth, the moon went through a cosmic cloud of water (the Deluge)
and subsequently
was covered for several centuries by water, which dissociated under
the ultra-violet
rays of the sun, with hydrogen escaping into space ."20 We are still left,
however, without the details of the effects of this situation upon
the Earth.

Morris on the Flood

In addition to presenting justification for a global flood, Morris assumes that
the canopy theory provides the source for the rains that lasted forty
days (Genesis
7). It is his belief that an antediluvian vapor blanket "at a
high elevation
in the lower atmosphere "21 would be out of reach of ordinary condensation
nuclei. Thus unusual conditions would have to prevail to cause precipitation.
Morris verges on astro-catastrophism by proposing that the Earth passed through
a meteorite swarm but also allows for sudden vulcanism which filled
the atmosphere
with dust particles which would provide the necessary hygroscopic nuclei.22

In the view of this analyst, Morris' chief contribution to the understanding of
the Flood of Noah is the suggestion that the order of the burial of life forms
in the strata of rocks making up the geological table was dependent
upon the principle
of the hydrodynamic selectivity of moving water.+ This principle
governs the
deposition of materials according to their similarity of size, shape,
and specific
gravity: in other words according to the amount of drag offered to the water.
Thus, according to Morris, the deposition process first laid down
simple organisms
near the bottom of the sediments and segregated more complex forms
into distinct
fauna! and floral stratigraphie horizons which has given the
appearance of evolution
of similar organisms in successively higher strata.

Morris' analyses of sedimentary deposits also highlights the importance of beds
of evaporites, namely salt, gypsum and anhydrite. These monomineralic deposits
are frequently claimed to he the by-products of long term evaporation of inland
seas or lakes. Of particular interest are salt plugs or domes. Concerning the
latter, Morris says, "it would seem the height of absurdity to
imagine that
these huge thicknesses of salt had been built by evaporation of
standing water."24
Generally the domes and plugs are thought to be intrusive elements in
the sedimentary
layers. Morris supposes the deposits are to be attributed to the
creation period
and that
the intrusions forming the salt domes being associated with the other volcanic
and tectonic activity during the Deluge."-" This writer assumes they
are indeed associated with the Deluge and also not evaporites but
glacioseparatives.

Patten on the Flood

Patten's basic views on the Flood, which are highly
unique, are contained in The Biblical Flood and the Ice
Epoch. Patten assumes that the source of the ice is ultimately "from the
remote, cold, ice abundant outer regions of our solar system or in
galactic regions
beyond."26 The ice was transported by an astral visitor, Mars or Mercury,
either in the form of an icy satellite or orbiting ice rings. This
celestial visitor
approached the Earth and lost the ice it was transporting to the superior field
of gravity exerted by the Earth. Under the influence of the magnetic field, the
ice, whether from rings or a disrupted ice satellite, became
electrically charged
and most of it was deflected by the Earth's magnetic field.
The effects upon the Earth were of staggering proportions. The
electrically charged
particles of ice were guided mainly around the magnetic poles in the
Earth's present
high altitudes. Some slop-over in the middle latitude caused the precipitation
of the vapor canopy which Patten like Morris assumes was in existence. From the
combination of the melting ice particles, a condensed vapor canopy, and rapidly
melting ice sheets formed around the magnetic poles, plus water from
the fountains
of the deep, the sources for the flood waters are provided by Patten.
The rupture
of the floor of the oceans to open the fountains of the deep leads us to one of
the remarkable insights of Patten concerning mountain building.

Patten contends that during this catastrophic year of the Deluge,
global mountain
chains that bear direct geometric relationships to old equatorial
belts were lifted
up as the result of the gravity of the astral visitor acting upon the
fluid contents
(magma) of the Earth. The stress would have been maximum on a rotating object
at the equator. Accordingly, Patten contends that the
Alpine-Himalayan and cireum-Pacific
zones of mountains are indicators of brief but catastrophic stress
periods along
these zones.27 He assumes that the astral intruder that transported
the ice made
two sweeps

This paper reflects largely the concepts of Henry Morris, Donald W. Patten and
the authortheistically controlled catastrophism-in comparison with the system
of Immanuel Velikovsky.

past the Earth to build these orogenie zones. The first sweep came at
the beginning
of the Flood and produced the eireum-Pacific zone; the second came at the close
of the Flood. With each sweep of the visitor the axis of the Earth
was radically
moved.

Of profound significance is Patten's linking this orgeny with the ice dump-flood catastrophe. In Washington State ice is
found sandwiched
between igneous layers of rock. In Patten's view, as lava was bleeding from the
Earth, simultaneously ice was being dumped upon the Earth.
Accordingly, if vuleanism
and the formation of ice sheets can be put together in the Northern Hemisphere,
we might expect the same for the Antarctic ice sheets. Such expectations have
been realized with the recent announcements that "tell-tale traces of 25
major volcanic eruptions and 2000 other
minor outpourings have been found in an ice
core taken from these ice sheets.28

McDowell on the Flood

It is my view that in large measure the orbiting rings which have
been described
above were deprived of their orbital velocities by (an) astral intruder(s) and
that the ice, glacioseparatives, sands, and gravel came cascading down upon the
Earth. Some struck the Earth with high velocities, some with low
velocities, being
affected by the magnetic field.

In relation to stratigraphy it is my view that there
was temporary entombment of large numbers of specimens of continental fauna and
flora. The seas were emptied by huge tidal waves and the marine life
was typically
deposited first according to Morris' principles of hydrodynamics. This action
was followed by the thawing of the piles of space debris, some having
formed mountainous
heaps and ridges. The uncovered but deeply frozen life forms of the continents
then were gathered by the rushing waters and later deposited according to the
principles of hydrodynamic selectivity.

The role of one of the glacioseparatives is noted, namely salt. It
was the major
chemical soluble of the primeval ocean, and in the process of the destruction
of the orbiting rings, huge deposits of the intensely chilled
materials were covered
rapidly by the rushing seas. After the sedimentation process was
completed, these
chilled materials absorbed the heat of the Earth, expanded and intruded through
the beds above in the forms of salt domes and plugs. Morris is quite right in
stating that the evaporites (glaeioseparatives) must be linked with
"catastrophic
environmental factors associated with the Flood,29 I follow Patten's ideas of
mountain building under the influence of an astral intruder. However, while I
see the logic of having life forms created as early as 12,000 B.C. and entombed
by subsequent catastrophes before the Flood of Noah, I believe that
the geological
table can best be defined in terms of its association with the Flood of Noah.
I believe, therefore, that the circum-Pacific and Alpine-Himalayan
uplifts came late
in the Flood year after the sedimentation process was essentially complete.

The flood requires, I believe, an agent to keep tides moving across the face of
the Earth in order to bring about pan-continental deposition from the bottom to
the top of the geological column. To me this can mean only a
satellite and therefore,
the Moon. The combined effort of the Moon and another intruder (and I believe
this would be Mars) could have produced the tidal forces necessary to produce
the mountain uplifts at the end of the Flood.

The role of the Moon as just cited could come about, it would seem,
only through
the process of the Earth capturing it. Reciprocal effects would be produced on
the Moon with extensive mountain building, widespread outpourings of lava and,
above all, the Earth's powerful magnetic field would have produced
the ubiquitous
remanent (fossil) magnetism now found in the formerly heated lunar rocks.30
Of great interest to me is the fact that the Moon is not mentioned in
the Scriptures
before Genesis 7:11 even though the name for it is a common Semitic
word. Therein
we read "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second
Moon, the seventeenth day of the Moon..."31 I
submit for consideration that this refers to the capture process of
the Moon.

Finally in relation to the Flood this writer feels the reason for the
Divine judgment
should he discussed, even if briefly. The Book of Jubilees (5:1-8)
calls the sons
of God of Genesis 6:1-4 angels of God. It relates that the union of the angelic
beings and women resulted in offspring which were giants. The angels also had
sexual relations with animals so that the flesh of both men and
animals was altered.
Indeed the animals are said to have left their original orders. As for mankind,
besides the Naphilim which are mentioned in Genesis 6:4, Jubilees 7:22 mentions
beings who are called Naphidim which were all unlike. Additionally there was a
third group of offspring called Eljo. These three groups are
enumerated as distinct
from original mankind. There can be no doubt that the teaching of this Jewish
book is that the intermingling of the humans and the angels produced biological
mutants, beings who were substantially different from the human race.

A fresh look at Genesis 6 is in order. Genesis 6:20 and 7:14 note the animals
that were admitted to enter the ark were after their kind. Presumably
this means
that there was to be no variation from the biological kinds or
species as described
in Genesis 1:24. Genesis 6:12 as stated in the King James Version states that
"all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." The verb used here
also has the meaning in Hebrew "to be marred," "to be
injured,"
or "to be perverted." This leaves us with the possibility
that the judgment
is a rescue of the remaining men and animals, who are still of the
original orders
of creation, from being engulfed by interbreeding into the new mutant
forms. Accordingly,
Genesis 6:0 should be noted carefully. The Hebrew text says that Noah
was "complete
in his generations." In other words he was completely a human being.

Comparative Views on Post-Flood Catastrophes

Velikovsky on Post-Flood
Catastrophes

Velikovsky concerned himself chiefly with postFlood catastrophes in his several
published works,
namely, Worlds in Collision, Ages in Choas, and Earth
in Upheaval. As we have already noted previously, Velikovsky believed a cosmic
upheaval occurred which accounted for the origin of Venus as a comet from the
planet Jupiter which had become unstable due to excessive rotational
speeds.

The impact of Velikovsky's ideas was far-reaching. In the physical sciences he
called for a reassessment of the influence of the gravitational field
of the sun
upon the movement of the planets especially when there was evidence
that the planets
had changed orbits, including the Earth; that both the geographical position of
the Earth's axis and its astronomical direction changed; that when the Earth's
atmosphere came in close contact with the comet Venus or the
atmosphere of Mars,
extraordinary electrical discharges took place, and to highlight just one more
item in a long list of influences in the physical realm, that Joshua's ordering
of the Sun and Moon to stand still was not just "a tall tale for
the credulous."32
The foregoing concepts along with others too numerous to elaborate
upon here called
for new principles of celestial mechanics. Velikovsky became
skeptical about the
"accepted celestial mechanics" which he maintained would be true only
if the Sun "is as a whole an electrically neutral body."33 Convinced
that the solar system was filled with electrical charges, Velikovsky believed
that the diurnal rotation of the Earth could be impeded or stopped "by the
Earth's passing through a strong magnetic field."34 It is
appropriate, therefore,
that Velikovsky began the list of the postFlood catastrophes with the story of
the Sun and the Moon standing still as recorded in Joshua 10.

But Velikovsky also concerned himself with a reordering of the events
of history
during the comet stages of Venus in his second work entitled Ages in Chaos. To
him the great problem of the history of antiquity was to find the link(s) between
the histories of Egypt and Israel. Of concern to the historians was
the fact that
such a notable event was not found recorded in Egyptian annals.

Velikovsky proposed that the Papyrus Ipuwer which had been declared
to he a collection
of proverbs written at the end of the Old Kingdom period was actually
a text describing
cataclysmic events paralleling those in the Exodus account.35 Furthermore, he
proposed that under the circumstances of national impotence the Hyksos, whom Velikovsky
identified with the Biblical Amalekites, entered Egypt and remained in control
until the time of Saul and David of Israel. By this chronological
shuffling, Velikovsky
makes the Israelites responsible for the rise of the New Kingdom of
Egypt. According
to him Saul effectively destroyed the major Amalekite garrison city
by which they
controlled Egypt.
The effect of this lowering of the Egyptian chronology approximates 500 years.
Velikovsky fully expected the radiocarbon datings would justify his
rearrangement
of the Egyptian chronology. Indeed such dating methods of the Old and
Middle Kingdoms
typically showed the standard or conventional chronologies to be 500-800 years
too old. For the New Kingdom radiocarbon datings suggest on an
average, however,
that the chronology should be lowered about 250 years. Nonetheless,
recent tests
on palm kernels and reeds from Tutankhamen's tomb tested out at 899
B.C. Velikovsky
had suggested in his chronology ca. 840 B.C. for Tutankhamen.36

Morris on Post-Flood Catastrophes

Morris does not concern himself with the post-Flood
catastrophes in the work entitled The Genesis Flood.
There is a section in the appendix which deals with genealogies,
expecially those
of Genesis 11. The authors maintain that the Genesis 11 genealogical
tables need
not be interpreted as a strict chronology. At the same time they conclude that
to allow more than 5000 years beween Abraham and the Flood
"stretches Genesis
11 almost to the breaking point."37
Patten on Post-Flood Catastrophes

Patten differs considerably from Velikovsky on postFlood Catastrophes, mainly
in respect to two concepts. First Patten maintains that the cosmic
intruder which
caused a whole series of catastrophes after the Flood is to be identified with
the planet Mars alone. This includes such events as the Sodom and
Gomorrah catastrophe,
the Exodus event, the Long Day of Joshua and others. Secondly, he
maintains that
the close passes of Mars by the Earth occurred with rhythmic
regularity and, therefore,
what can he called cyclic astronomical catastrophism.

Cyclic astronomical eatastrophism is actually the product of a team effort, for Patten
has been joined here in his efforts with Ronald R. Hatch. According to
their solar system model, before 701 B.C. catastrophes occurred or threatened
to occur on an average of 54 years. These cycles of astronomical catastrophes
are linked with the involvement of Mars which had an orbital
ellipticity of about
0.4, a comet-type orbit. They hold that Mars must have approached the
Sun within
88 million miles, compared to Earth's 91.5 million miles. In its movement away
from the Sun, Patten and Hatch believe that Mars reached its aphelion at about
206 million miles. This location was 55 million miles beyond its
present aphelion
and it coincided with the middle of the asteroid zone.

Patten and Hatch establish their rationale for the 54 year cycle of
catastrophes
on the basis of resonant orbits as found in connection with the
movement of asteroids.
Transferring this concept of orbital movement to Mars the rationale
goes as follows:
The inferior conjunctions of Mars (those when Mars was inside Earth's
orbit, and
the two planets were in alignment with the Sun) would he tied into a
"resonant
orbit" for Mars. A resonant orbit can be a stable orbit, and in this case
the resonance was 2:1. Thus two Earth orbits equalled one Mars orbit. Patten and
Hatch cite the resonant movement of three asteroids in 2:1 resonance
with Jupiter
to explain their model. These concepts are to he published in a work entitled,
The Long Day of Joshua and Other Post-Flood Catastrophes scheduled for release
in late 1973 or early 1974.

An additional word of clarification is needed for the orbital position of Mars
before 701 B.C. The PattenHatch model is entirely different from Lynn
Rose's model
of Mars being an inner planet. Rose attempts to justify Velikovsky's model of
the solar system which assumes that before the 9th century B.C. Mars
was an inner
planet which in its movement did not cross the Earth's path. Through
a near collision
with the comet Venus, a transfer of energy skewed its orbital motion into one
which was highly elliptical, so that it began to periodically cross the Earth's
path.38 Rose proposes this model in order to explain why before the 9th century
B.C. "Mars did not arouse any fears in the hearts of the ancient astrologers and its name was seldom mentioned
in the second
millenium .."39.
McDowell on Post-Flood Catastrophes

I follow Patten and Hatch in their concepts of cyclic astronomical catastrophism.
My concern in this area of investigation is the behavior of men. In a
forthcoming
work I will deal with the biblical period from Joseph to David.

I accept Velikovsky's lead in Ages in Chaos that the Egyptian chronology is in
error but do not identify the Hyksos with the Biblical Amalekites. Instead, I
recognize the Amorites as the Hyksos and present evidence for the
fact that they
controlled Egypt through most of 16th through the 14th centuries.

I lower the Egyptian chronology on the basis of radiocarbon datings
and a reassessment
of the archaeological data from Egypt and the Aegean. I terminate the
19th Dynasty
of Egypt, the Hittite Empire, the city of Ugarit, and the Mycenaean
world during
the reign of David. I also give reasons from the Dead Sea Scrolls and
inscriptions
in the Aegean why David nearly became involved in the Trojan War.
Moreover I give
reasons why the Mycenaean civilization is an extension of the cultural pool of
the Southeast Mediterranean.

According to my chronological framework, the Exodus took place in the middle of
the 15th century B.C. Akhenaton, whom Velikovsky placed in the 9th
century B.C.,
I place in the 12th century B.C. Nevertheless, we agree that Moses
antedates the
New Kingdom of
Egypt.

I depart completely from Velikovsky on the matter of the identity of Mars and
Venus during this period. I present evidence that Mars is the same as Apollo,
and Apollo is the same as Biblical and Ugaritic Baal. As for Velikovsky's remark
about Mars not arousing fear in the hearts of ancient astrologers, I
believe this
is erroneous. Baal also goes by the name Addad/ Haddad. This name can be traced
back to the Flood.

I believe it is significant that Velikovsky has only four references in Worlds
in Collision to Baal and even so he equates Baal, without
explanation, to Venus.
I also find it significant that Velikovsky shied away from Ligaritic
tests which
give so much elaboration on Baal. In a work now in preparation, I go
into considerable
detail about Baal being the planet Mars which periodically swept by the Earth. Patten's identification of the astral intruder with Mars has much
stronger textual
support than Velikovsky's Venus.

Conclusion

My remarks in this paper certainly do not constitute an adequate delineation of
the present status of studies on catastrophism as influenced by
Immannel Velikovsky.
Nonetheless, the remarks have been made with the hope that some
overall perspective
has been gained and that this perspective highlights the importance
of catastrophism
for an understanding of Earth history.